Talk:Austrian school of economics/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Gold in the Lede

As the really distinctive, unique, feature of AS is its "old fashioned" support of a free market-based gold or silver standard, I suggest this aspect should be featured in the lede. Thoughts please? "Sound money" comes directly from the Mises quote in the body of the article, so doesn't need to be cited. Clearly "sound money" is open to interpretation but appears to be generally interpreted as support for a gold or silver (or commodity-based) money system.

The Austrian school advocates a fixed supply of money, that governments cannot devalue -- what is meant by sound money. The easiest way to achieve this is of course a metallic standard. Mining more gold is far more costly than operating a printing press, so a gold-standard ought -- the argument goes -- not loose it's value so quickly as a fiat currency. Need to find a good source, but yeah, this is a significant part of the school and should be in the article Tiggythegreat (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Weakopedia edit comment

User, Weakopedia, stated, "none of these sources mention Austrians or Mises and their inclusion to support your point is OR" I'm somewhat baffled by the comment, since much of the statement he takes issue with is clearly a description of the mainstream. I humbly invite any elaboration from Weakopedia that he may have to offer. BigK HeX (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It really is rather simple, and I do not intend to spend so much time at the explanation since I have already linked you to Original research where you can better work on your state of bafflement.

You have taken several disparate statements and attempted to link them all with your own research. You have said that the Austrians claim that the mainstream failed to predict the crash. You have said that in fact mainstream econominsts did predict the crash. You have said that some Austrians actually said something else so they were cherry picking their statements.

The common element here is - YOU have said. That isn't good enough for a Wikipedia article.

Your assertion that this is all common knowledge really is quite the opposite of all Wikipedia principles - you are not a reliable source for established opinion!

You do not have a source that says that despite Austrian claims that mainstream economics failed, it didn't. You have instead taken examples which you think show it not failing and included them. That is like saying 'Austrians say this is so. But I happen to know different, look!'.

That is not how Wikipedia works. Your personal opinions of the validity of the Austrian claims are non-notable. You only get to include the opinions of reliable sources.

If some of those sources had said something like, 'Austrians said no-one predicted the crash but we did so they have glossed over our warnings' then that would be ok to include - it isn't ok just because your personal knowledge says so.

Adding the opinions of Schiff and saying that they disagree with the Austrian argument is yet more serious OR. Where is your source to say that Schiffs words are significant, that they represent a disparity of views. You have taken the views of one person and, without a source linking the two events, have presented that persons views as contrary and significant.

I shall once again remove the offending passage - there is no edit warring over blatant OR. Find a source which makes these claims if you can, but do not add the passage again without doing so. The passage is reproduced below to assist other editors in helping source it for you, and to explain the concept of OR, bold portion is what no longer remains in the article. Weakopedia (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Critics of the Austrian school contend that by rejecting mathematics and econometrics, it has failed to contribute significantly to modern economics. Additionally, they contend that its methods currently consist of post-hoc analysis and do not generate testable implications; therefore, they fail the test of falsifiability.[7] Austrian economists counter that testability in economics is virtually impossible since it relies on human actors who cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions. Austrians also counter with the argument that mainstream economics has a very poor record of "scientific" prediction and note that mainstream economists generally failed to predict or warn of major economic events such as the recent Global Financial Crisis and the Great Depression,[35][36][37][38] a claim which glosses over the warnings about the financial sector which came from economists associated with mainstream schools of economic thought[39][40][41][42][43][44][45] in regards to the late 2000's crisis, and also cherry-picks among certain predictions from Austrian School adherents while ignoring instances where the followers failed in their timing or description of the financial crises.[46][47]

Ignoring for now the assertions you have falsely attributed to me, I'll say that you can make whatever strange claim you like about what "I" am supposedly "saying." With my sources to attest to the veracity of the basic assertions made in my edit, I will continue to have little qualms in asserting facts. If you think that you can legitimately challenge the fact that economists associated with the mainstream have made predictions regarding the crisis, by all means, please proceed. BigK HeX (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"You only get to include the opinions of reliable sources."

This seems to be at the heart of our dispute. You seem to be quoting policy directed at commentary/opinion, while what is at hand is a small set of facts. So, as mentioned, if you are seriously challenging whether economists from the mainstream made predictions regarding crisis, I'll be interested to hear it. BigK HeX (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again you have inserted random references to support your assertion that Austrians 'glossed over' predictions or 'cherry-picked' from their own. It is unfortunate that you are not able or willing to provide a source for what you claim is unchalengable. Just because your original research is well-founded does not mean that you are now able to add that to a Wikipedia article and have it remain when challenged. If you believe that my removal of your original research constitutes an edit war then I encourage you to report the matter. Weakopedia (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

With no regard to whether you may have done so intentionally, but I'll note that you failed to address my request. You seem to have little comment on the assertion of economists of mainstream schools making predictions .... if your complaint centers around "gloss over" and "cherry pick," then that is fairly simple to rectify. I have rewritten the text a bit, under the presumption that this might be the issue. BigK HeX (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I did address you request in my edit summary when I removed the original research - what I said was, the burden of proof lies with the person who wishes to include information in the article, and that since the material had been challenged it must be removed until a source was found for it. That is still the case, it is how Wiki operates. What you said was you didn't think Wiki operated this way and that you were free to include anything you thought of as fact without a reference and it was up to the challenger to provide a reason for removing it. And that is not Wiki.

You have removed some of the weasel-words that were in the section - well done, that is a start. What you have left is a disparate set of facts which you have joined together using your own understanding of the situation, without providing a source to say that understanding is valid.

Of note are particular phrases you use, like 'Of note is....' followed by nary a reference to say why it might be of note. Nor do you think you need one, it seems, since you say that since it is of note it can be automatically included without a reference since it is common knowledge. Your attitude of ownership is not conducive to the betterment of the article and is likely to be brought to attention. Weakopedia (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not in the least swayed by your silly threats, your misleadingly written noticeboard statement, or your tendentious pedantics. BigK HeX (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm kinda busy so am just going to drop this in here and run. IMO, the person most named as the 'economist who predicted the crisis' is Noriel Roubini. See this article for instance. Here is probably the most widely cited paper about who did or did not predict the crisis: [1] Note that most of the economists cited are not Austrians. LK (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why this is at all relevant to the article or to this discussion, but thanks for sharing your opinion. *shrug* --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The Austrian article was recently expanded to cover a topic relevant to Roubini and the credit he's been accorded for predictions. I'm not exactly sure that it's appropriate in the article (especially WRT undue weight issues), but it's there nonetheless and is being worked on for balance/weight. (Just a litle "FYI"  :-) BigK HeX (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this section reads fine now (there was no need to protect the article - there were no 3RR violations and the "edit warring" was very civil). Admins often come in after the "dispute" is actually resolved. Ironic. (A bit like international "peacekeeping"?)

While a decent point to build from, the current version still largely fails to correct the balance problems involved with leaving the mainstream characterized only by the statements of the Mises.org bloggers. The current section on Keen, et al. could partially assist in the neutrality problems if it is expanded with some elaborations on methodology, but, even then, it'd still improve the NPOV of the section by referencing the mainstream. BigK HeX (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, but be very careful defining the mainstream. You can't define it one way and then another. Roubini wasn't (isn't) mainstream. Alan Greenspan would be. Larry Summers would be. Paul Samuelson was. Paul Krugman arguably not, perhaps on the left-fringe of the mainstream. Schiller probably yes, again slightly fringe given his behavioral work. You can't say "all these mainstreamers were screaming about the GFC" and then use Roubini or even Schiller as evidence. You could use a quote from Larry Summers or Alan Greenspan. But I don't think you'll find one.

For goodness sake, Roubini is as mainstream as you get. He's a tenured professor of economics at the Stern School of Business, and a fellow of the NBER. Almost all economists (except perhaps the Marxists) are more mainstream than the libertarian Miseans you find on the internets these days. LK (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, 'hi' again Karmaisking. LK (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi LK. You should take it up with the NYTimes. "The audience [of mainstream economists] seemed skeptical, even dismissive."

A person doesn't magically become disassociated with a field of science, merely because his peers don't become immediately enamored with his predictions. Not sure why you keep ignoring this simple point. BigK HeX (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to make this point repeatedly ... I'm really not sure how to explain it better. Regardless of whether Roubini (et al.) agreed or disagreed with any "prevailing wisdom," Roubini IS nonetheless associated with the mainstream, because we are talking about the mainstream schools [more accurately, we're discussing "methodology" in that section of the article but my point remains valid]. In any case, it is the same with Shiller, Krugman, etc. The argument that you're making about them somehow not being associated with the schools because of their departure on a prediction is worse than declaring that "Hayek isn't associated with the Austrian school at all because he departed from the "prevailing Austrian 'wisdom'" of unequivocally rejecting mathematics in economics."

Your use of "mainstream" seems to fall as "mainstream (as in consensus) on predictions," whereas the usage in the article refers to "the mainstream schools." There is a huge distinction between those two uses of the word. BigK HeX (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see a reliable source asserting that either Roubini or Shiller is either mainstream or orthodox. Some economists (e.g., David Colander, John B. Davis) distinguish between the mainstream/non-mainstream and the orthodox/heterodox distinctions. The first is a matter of the sociology of the profession (e.g., who cites whom) and the second is a matter of the content of the theories. Last I looked, I didn't think the wikipedia articles made this point clearly. Anyways, in their thinking, you can have mainstream heterodox economics (e.g., behavioral economics). Maybe the entry should talk about "Non-Austrian heterodox economists" having predicted the crisis. And then the examples could be all the economists in Table 1 (other than Schiff) in Bezemer (2009). We don't want the article to have undue weight, synthesis, and original research, do we? -- RLV 209.217.195.157 (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Robert Shiller chaired Professor of Economics at Yale University, Fellow of the Yale International Center for Finance and the National Bureau of Economic Research, former Vice President of the American Economic Association, President of the Eastern Economic Association and ranked among the 100 most influential economists of the world. I think rather, the assertion that Shiller is not part of the mainstream would be the assertion that would require a reliable source. LK (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't and don't describe Shiller as non-mainstream. (I didn't see a cite of a reliable source for the above.) I do cite reliable sources who characterize behavioral economics as an example of mainstream heterodox economics. The article contrast of disputed successful Austrian predictions of the global financial crisis with supposedly successful mainstream predictions is some combination of original research, synthesis, and undue weight. (I'm not a supporter of the Austrian school.) -- RLV 209.217.195.133 (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's cited in the articel, per your request. Time magazine. BigK HeX (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Claims of significance

note: Zhen Jin is yet another sock of Karmaisking. The Chinese on his user page reads: 'Without gold, you are doomed'. LK (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

LK, I am Chinese, and that is not true. It says: "without gold, you are destined." As to claims of significance: See Economic calculation debate.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Teeninvestor, if you want to be literally accurate about it, it translates literally as: 'not have gold pieces your destiny comes'. But the intent is clear. BTW, in case you didn't know, the original meaning of doom is destiny, they are synonyms, although in current usage, doom now usually has a negative connotation. LK (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Another KiK just surfaced, with the same phrase (Without gold, you are doomed) on the user page, except it is in French this time, see User:Or79. So, it is clear that Zhen Jin is a KiK sock. LK (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Zhen Jin does seem to quack. BigK HeX (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Question How do the editors (in-good-standing) here feel about KiK's ongoing comments on the talk page? Should we allow them to stand, or should they be removed? LK (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Who's KiK?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Karmaisking – archived sockpuppet investigations. LK (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless the comments somehow manage to spark a useful discussion relevant to improving the article, I remove them per WP:RBI. BigK HeX (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that User:Karmaisking's comments here have not been productive, and have degenerated to rude personal attacks (as they usually do), I have decided to blanket revert all further comments by him. I suggest that from now on, any edits made by KiK socks, whether on talk pages or article pages, be blanket reverted as soon as a sock is identified. LK (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The first use of "Austrian"

Menger’s approach—haughtily dismissed by the leader of the German Historical School, Gustav Schmoller, as merely “Austrian,” the origin of that label—led to a renaissance of theoretical economics in Europe and, later, in the United States. Peter G. Klein, 2007; in the Foreword to Principles of Economics, Carl Menger; trs. James Dingwall and Bert F. Hoselitz, 1976; Ludwig von Mises Institute, Alabama; 2007; ISBN 978-1-933550-12-1

I have added this.

Also, the impression from the Foreword is that it was first used for Grundsätze der Volkswirtschaftslehre(The Principles of Economics, 1871), and not the Untersuchungen über die Methode der Socialwissenschaften und der politischen Oekonomie insbesondere (Investigations into the method of the social sciences with special reference to economics, 1883). (Only an impression; it is not clearly stated.) N6n (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Austrian Economics versus Political Theory

This article makes numerous claims about the supposed political views of Austrian economists. While it is true that Austrian economists are generally libertarian and support libertarian policies, this is a separate issue from their work as economists and the school itself. Their discipline is value free, and the article should be changed to reflect that. Kborer (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that, if anything, the notable criticisms about their strong political advocacy, in the support of a system which is ostensibly "value-free" should be included. BigK HeX (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Paper from computing magazine

An editor has been removing some material from the end of the Economic calculation problem section. The paper in question specifically mentions in the beginning the claims from Austrian economists about rational planning being impossible in socialist economics. Austrian's believe that it is possible in a market-based economy. The paper offers a differing view. Glancing through the paper, it seems fairly on point with the material in the diff an accurate summary of the paper. I'm not seeing a reason to remove it. Ravensfire (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that the editor fails to understand Complexity theory, and is speculating that the paper is not relevant. Needless to say, it's pretty dicey to edit based on wild speculation. BigK HeX (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the paper counts as a reliable source (peer-reviewed and all), but given the historical weight of the calculation problem, I think one paper in a (self-described) "Unconventional Computing" journal should be given its due weight, and I lean towards due weight being exclusion from this article until the idea is picked up and followed-through by others, and particularly by more economists. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That seems a pretty tricky criteria to apply to apply here, as this article survives on sources with "unconventional" publication. There are roughly 2 dozen(?) refs in the Wiki article which are to Mises.org. The weight given to the computation critique is pretty small, and given the weight accorded to other unconventional refs, I'd say the weight is appropriate on a relative basis. BigK HeX (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mises.org gets too much reference throughout WP. However, for this article, heavy reliance is appropriate since it's the most prominent Austrian economics organization currently and publishes a lot of material (including the scholarly journal). The point is that the calculation issue is one that is important in economics, extends beyond the Austrians, and has a lot of history. So commentary on it seems like it can be held to a high standard, which to me means that it's right to question the source as a computer science journal. (I'm similarly skeptical of a number of "heterodox" analyses which get published in physics journals and the like, which when I read them seem like they didn't have economists included in the peer review.) CRETOG8(t/c) 19:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting, and looking at the article's abstract. It's partly in response to a paper by Murphy in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. If that specific Murphy paper was considered important enough to the Austrian argument that it should be included in this WP article, then the Cottrell, Cockshott, and Michaelson paper might be worth including as a response. But the Murphy paper isn't cited here. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting that the Murphy paper wouldn't be here. It's not in the sub-article either. A concern that I have with removing this is without it there is a single line critical of this concept - "This led him to declare "…that rational economic activity is impossible in a socialist commonwealth."[9] Mises's declaration has been criticized as overstating the strength of his case, in describing socialism as impossible, rather than having to contend with a source of inefficiency. ", and it's unsourced.

I'm not as concerned about the paper in question being in a computer science journal - determining if a problem is solvable is very much a part of that field and is relevant here. I haven't read the Murphy paper (might have to see if I can get a copy of it), as the concern I always have is their underlying assumptions and statements about the problem - if those are generally the same as used by Murphy (or other similar papers), I would feel better.

I keep reviewing the actual text in our article though, and it's just too, well, scholarly for me. "Calculators"? Seriously? Maybe it's technically correct, especially from a CS view, but it doesn't flow well with the article. I don't have an alternative (yet), but will be thinking about it. On top of that, the "A recent paper..." really needs to go. It should just say something about it has been argued that Mises belief that a capitalist society can solve the economic calculation problem has been challenged, that if a single large central decision maker is not capable then many smaller decisions makers are also not capable, sourced to the paper. Something to tie it into the main subject of the section, what it's critical of and why. Ravensfire (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: The lack of sourcing for assertion, "overstating the strength of his case, in describing socialism as impossible, rather than having to contend with a source of inefficiency. "

I originally wrote that, and it goes with the current #78 ref. Teeninvestor recently disturbed my citation for it. I was not sure if he co-opted my citation because his new passage was supported by my ref (#78) ... I had serious doubts about that. I thought about reattaching my ref, but held off, as he and I were involved in other difficulties. However, I will fix that unsourced statement now. BigK HeX (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys; this is the article on Austrian economics, not article on computing. We don't publish economists's musings on how physics research respond to material incentives, and we shouldn't be publishing the computing paper here. And besides, as any exposition of the Austrian economic calculation case would tell you, the reason is because all of the data needed for "planning" is subjective and can't be collected; so even with a big computer the criticism will stand. Almost all Austrian texts state this. Not only that, this paper is completely WP:UNDUE; As far as I know, no major economists, even ultra keynesians like Paul Krugman and Galbraith believes that Capitalism suffers from the economic calculation problem, which is what this paper is arguing.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A good idea would be for you to concede that you don't understand complexity theory, and further, that you don't really understand what the source is arguing. Trust me ... the editors who do understand the concepts argued in the paper are hardly going to be swayed by fallacious appeals. BigK HeX (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I freely concede I don't understand complexity theory (my only econ knowledge is Austrian economics plus basic Neoclassical microeconomics). I still fail to see how this is relevant. Perhaps tag that this paper is based on complexity theory?Teeninvestor (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "tagging" it. I wikilinked it to a subsection in the Computational Complexity article a while back (though I forgot to try and find a better place to wikilink it to, since that bit on "Turing machines" isn't exactly the most explanatory). BigK HeX (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Check my edit. I made it clear the paper's criticism was based on complexity theory.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Your edit there is just as accurate, so is perfectly fine in that regard. BigK HeX (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparent consensus is good, so I should leave well enough alone. However, for posterity, I still think referencing the Cottrell et al paper is WP:UNDUE, as well as somewhat suspect since the Murphy paper they're responding to isn't cited in the WP article. Also, according to Google Scholar, neither Cottrell et al or Murphy has much by way of citations. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the references in the Cottrell et al paper? There's a growing body of literature applying computability theory to economics, including to the economic calculation argument. I think a new way of viewing the argument may be emerging. At first, the consensus was that Lange and Lerner won. In the 1980s and 1990s a new body of literature convinced many that the Austrians had the better of the argument. Now we are seeing the argument being analyzed with a formal treatment in terms of information and computability theory. By the way, the Wikipedia entry on the Economic calculation problem is bad, both in terms of grammar and substance. The argument from the Austrians is not focused on incentives. It has nothing to do with Mises theory of why holding money provides utility. The entry was probably written by an Austrian fanboy who doesn't understand the subject. -- RLV 209.217.195.182 (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've skimmed the Cottrell et al paper, including the references. And you may be right, but that paper doesn't appear influential (yet). It appears to be one little-referenced response to a little-referenced previous work. CRETOG8(t/c) 13:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Left out insitutions

I, for one, am disappointed that Hillsdale College is left out in discussion of leading Austrian economic departments. Many of its professors have studied at George Mason, and Many professors at George Mason attended Hillsdale for their Undergraduate studies. It certainly should be added to the wikipage. Choosetomind (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

IBCR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

no convincing case presented that IBCR can be considered an RS, so closing [I am an involved editor] BigK HeX (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

---

I can't even find a website for this place, that would definitively link to a company out of Rhode Island. BigK HeX (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The papers in question are found on the Ludwig von Mises Institute website. As I understand it they are a private economic consulting firm with all info provided and verified. Do you have a substantive objection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PraxisConsensus (talk • contribs) 15:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm ... yeah. To be clear, this is about IBCR (not the LvMI). Your understanding is helpful, but if you care to give us some verifiable info on IBCR, please, we'd want to share in your understanding. BigK HeX (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

To me, that article looks like a working paper. I did a Google scholar search on "Justin Ptak" in the hopes of finding a published version, but nothing turned up except one other apparently-unpublished paper which cites it. The Mises institute is a prominent representative of Austrian economics, and is sometimes a good source of related material (previously published works, and the peer-reviewed Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics). But I don't know about the IBCR, or this paper in particular. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a well respected think-tank/education facility and the material discussed in these papers are well established and would be an insightful clarifying source and would provide expository remarks for a greater explanation of the material here-in. If someone has specific disagreements with the material then that would move this discussion forward. If not I am not sure what the confusion or hold up is to adding this material to the articles. PraxisConsensus —Preceding undated comment added 12:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC).

The hold-up isn't (for me) a matter of disagreement. I haven't really even checked the material for what it says, I'm just trying to look at whether it's a reliable source. Has the article been published in a peer-reviewed journal? It appears that it hasn't. If it were a publication of a known organization, maybe it could be judged based on the organization, but I'm not able to independently verify that the ICBR is "a well respected think-tank/education facility". It might help if you provide links to substantiate that. If you are frustrated by your reception at this talk page, you could take another approach and go to the reliable sources noticeboard to ask for feedback on whether ICBR is a reliable source. If you do so, please link the discussion here so we can see/take part. CRETOG8(t/c) 12:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless informatin about this organization can be found, it cannot be considered a reliable source. TFD (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

RS demands that the publisher have a reputation for fact-checking, etc. If we cannot even find basic information on the publisher, then it seems we'll have to work under the presumption that it has no useful reputation at all. BigK HeX (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The Mises Institute has no useful reputation at all? PraxisConsensus —Preceding undated comment added 11:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC).

@PraxisConsensus: Where did you learn that it is "a well respected think-tank/education facility"? Just provide the link. N6n (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A quick search reveals that these papers are being taught by professors in universities around the world including Duke, Wofford College, SF State and they are currently co-located on the Mises Institute website. Not to mention these papers have been cited by other Ph.D scholars in the field. PraxisConsensus (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Links please. Check WP:OR. N6n (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick search:

-Seminar History of Economic Thought - S.F. State - ECON 605, Dr. Philip G. King, Cornell PhD.

-History of Economic Thought – Wofford College – ECON 440, Dr. Timothy Terrell, Auburn PhD.

-http://www.dataprospecting.com/mises_book_list.html

-http://nb.vse.cz/kfil/elogos/miscellany/bilo105.pdf

-http://guides.library.duke.edu/content.php?pid=49944

-http://econ.duke.edu/undergraduate/courses/syllabi-archives

-http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/History_of_economic_thought::sub::Journals PraxisConsensus (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ...... now what is it exactly that we're supposed to be seeing in those links??? BigK HeX (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest a post on Reliable Sources/Noticeboard to settle this matter. LK (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest allowing my changes stand as no one has challenged any of it and I have provided ample evidence to its scholastic validity and improvement to the articles in their entirety. I am only here to enhance the wikipedia experience and add to the quest for knowledge. PraxisConsensus (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I checked four webpages in your list (all except the pdf file), and found nothing relevant. N6n (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You should be looking at the material presented if you have any understanding of economics, if not I'm not surprised you did not find anything you deemed relevant. PraxisConsensus (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You should be looking for material that will tell us why IBCR is a reliable source, not attacking other editors. Nothing in that list shows why IBCR should be considered a reliable source. Ravensfire (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not attacking anyone, the source material speaks for itself. I am sorry if you cannot understand it. PraxisConsensus (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll likely close this thread soon. You've been asked many times to provide the merest shred of evidence that we can verify a reputation for the organization called IBCR. You seem unwilling or unable to do this, so there's no need to keep beating this horse. BigK HeX (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? All the evidence is right there before your eyes. This is about papers that contribute directly to the articles in question published by the Mises Institute. PraxisConsensus (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The WP:RS question we have is not about the Mises Institute (at least not in this context), but about IBCR. The Mises institute is where these documents are web-hosted, but not apparently who published them, and so the standing of the Mises Institute isn't very helpful in determining if these papers should be referenced. CRETOG8(t/c) 13:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

organization of criticisms

Regarding an argument up at Talk:Austrian_School#Krugman.27s_claim_about_increased_spending, is it possible to decide whether:

(a) Mainstream criticisms of the Austrian school should be integrated into the main text (in which case, mainstream responses to Austrian criticisms should also be so included), or

(b) Mainstream criticisms (9including responses to Austrian criticisms) should be relegated to their own section.

Wikipedia style guidelines aren't very strong on this (here, for instance). I also don't have a strong feeling for which is a better approach. If relegating mainstream responses to their own section, there's going to be a fair amount of redundancy, since what's being criticized/responded to will likely have to be repeated. When that's combined with the normal-for-WP view that minority views (such as those of the Austrian school) shouldn't be mis-represented, it risks the "Mainstream criticism" section becoming the bulk of the article, which certainly doesn't seem right. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Especially the criticism of Schiff was for the most part not only misguided, but ad hominem (referring to the broken clock comment) too. Text like that has no place in this article or any other for that matter. Schiff explained in great detail why the crash was imminent, not only in various interviews, commentaries and articles, but also in his book Crash Proof. That is not the work of a "broken clock", that is the work of a man with a clear, detailed understanding of economics. Not only that, Schiff remained bullish on many things, especially gold and other commodities, but also many non-US equities. Looking at the Austrian track record of getting things right, it seems petty and ridiculous to claim that Mises failed to predict the collapse of the pound, considering that not only did he predict the Wall Street crash, but he also explained in great detail why socialism as an economic system cannot work at a time when the whole world was swept by it.

I would also like to remind everyone that this article is on the Austrian School of economics, it shouldn't be subject to the vandalism of ideologues like BigHeX and LK. Editing WP-pages also requires that you know something about the subject matter, which they clearly do not. They have absolutely no business editing this article. Misessus (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NPA, WP:VALID, and probably WP:TRUTH. BigK HeX (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

@Cretog: "Mainstream criticisms of the Austrian school should be integrated into the main text (in which case, mainstream responses to Austrian criticisms should also be so included)"

This seems to be the approach suggested per policy as described at WP:STRUCTURE. BigK HeX (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a separate section of mainstream criticisms of the Austrian school. For whatever reason, a separate section for Austrian criticism of mainstream economists over predictions has been made part of the article. This is in and of itself a bit odd, because Austrians generally point to logical fallacies of mainstream theories when they criticize the mainstream. So one could argue that the section should either be removed completely or be changed to "Austrian vs. Mainstream predictions", in which case I'm not sure the Austrian School main article is the right place for it. At any rate, it should be clear that untrue and ad hominem attacks should NOT be part of any WP article, and certainly not when aimed at an Austrian in the article on the Austrian School. How can this in any way be up for dispute. BigHeX, stop revising my edit or I'll report you for vandalism. Misessus (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Prediction of Great Depression

Hello, I don't think the following statement should be included in the criticism of mainstream practices subsection:

Austrians also often note that Mises and Hayek warned about the impending stock market crash in 1929 in stark contrast to mainstream economists such as Irwing Fisher, who as late as September 1929 claimed that the US stock market had reached a permanent high plateau.

In 1929, Keynesian economics wasn't even fully developed. My interpretation of "mainstream" as referred to in the article is modern mainstream. Putting the above quote in seems to me like citing the inaccuracies of Aristotle's explainations of the world as evidence against modern mainstream physics.--Dark Charles 05:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I'll move it to the history section.--  Novus  Orator  05:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the "Schiff stated that the dollar would completely collapse"-bit. I read the report and he did not make any such statement and linked to a video in which he refutes precisely that criticism.Misessus (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Samuelson's prediction

The article says, "Another example cited by Austrians is Keynesian economist Paul Samuelson's prediction that the USSR would overtake the US, a claim that Samuelson held as late as 1989." It's referenced to Samuelson's book. While it's probably worthwhile to verify that Samuelson actually said what he's being criticized for, it's at least as important to reference an Austrian citing that as an example, otherwise, the statement isn't really valid. Where is such a criticism? CRETOG8(t/c) 02:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I really wanted to see a good source for that claim. I searched on the internet looking for information, but this was the best I could find. Google books doesn't have Samuelson's textbook. And don't tell, but I checked on Gigapedia and they didn't have a sufficiently old version of the book. So basically, I've got nothing.--Dark Charles 04:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The current source is good enough, largely because its where he said it. I have a good source that has Austrians quoting him on it.--  Novus  Orator  04:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a lot better. CRETOG8(t/c) 08:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of mainstream

Bleh, seems like my links don't work, I'll try to find some that do. Anyway, a short run down of 2009 and 2010:

USD price of gold: End of January 2009: 920/ounce End of January 2010: 1,080/ounce End of January 2011: 1,325/ounce

Dollar index: On March 4, 2009, the Dollar index hit its high point at 88.577. From there, it started to slope and fell quite quickly to its low point on December 2, bottoming out at 74.669. On June 9, 2010, the dollar index hit its high for the year at 87.897, but closed the year at 79.521 and is currently (February 4, 2011) at 78.044.

The point of this exercise was that if people are going to claim that Schiff's client suffered heavy losses in the close of 2008, then it should also be pointed out that those losses were regained and surpassed in 2009 and especially in 2010. The whole story should be told. Misessus (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

What you're doing is WP:OR. You need to find a source that says Schiff's clients recouped their loses. If not, then we can't put in the article.--Dark Charles 01:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

To be more specific, you'll need to find a reliable source that specifically discusses the topic as described by User:Dark Charles. BigK HeX (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wording of phrase

Hello! I changed a section to clarify what scientific method the Austrian School disputes (positivism), because the original seemed to imply that Austrians dispute all scientific principles. I think my version will more clearly show that the dispute is merely between those who approach economics as a Social Science (Austrians) and those who approach it as an empirical science (Keynesians, Neoclassical). Any comments?--  Novus  Orator  04:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK reversion

If clearing out the Sea of Blue is appreciated, then why revert? Does laissez-faire need to be linked twice in the same paragraph and in an earlier paragraph? See WP:REPEATLINK. As for the non-redundant links, the only ones deleted were plain English words and major geographic names and locations such as Germany, France, etc. Please, if I've over-deleted, go to the specific non-redundant links and restore. But the amount of linking in Austrian School is drastic and the overlinking only serves to make the article less readable.--S. Rich (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)07:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

heterodoxy

wherein lies the determinacy for designating the Austrian School as "heterodox"?

is it because it at odds with the prevailing Keynesianism?

TrialUndErratum (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Whoever controls the system controls the labels.--  Novus  Orator  06:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

And so, of course, because they "control" (ha!) the system, they must be evil statists out to destroy everything! Cosman246 (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Land ownership

I noticed that amongst "Notable theories" of the Austrian school there was no mention of land ownership. I thought that the mechanism Austrians suggest for distributing land amongst a population was very "notable" indeed (mixing labour with land and all that). I wonder if anyone would like to add a section explaining this. I'm not going to push this any further - its just a suggestion. Reissgo (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

root of economic theory

It is just awful to say so much about economic theory and never so much as mention what the discussions are argued over. The the economic cycle is that the economy is what for who, we seek satisfaction in the natural world. BARTERING for goods is a root or core of that for which there ultimately is supply and demand (stimulated we hope). A critical component of bartering is the TOWN SCALE and whether the town has any rules of barter (such as that crop is distributed fairly enough and completely despite any breakdown in bartering). . Most argument is about money (representation of exchange) and how socialist (whether goods are diverted or misdirected outside of bartering). Since good faith exchange (commercial law) is very old exchange itself, that has never been an issue of debate. (user sven_nestle)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.175.218 (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Mainstream Practices

I found some humor in this line: "or with Peter Schiff who predicted that the U.S. dollar would weaken significantly, whereas the opposite occurred.[61]" Gold has continually out-preformed the market and is now setting record highs on a near daily basis. The criticism of Schiff's predictions is baseless and taken out of context. Schiff has repeatedly explained why his 2002 predictions did not come to fruition, which was due to central bank intervention. Had the fed not hosed the economy to kingdom-come, what Schiff had predicted would have come to pass much earlier. As it stands now, his claims of a currency crisis are materializing by the day. 158.61.151.200 (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter Schiff's support of Austrian economics is widely noted. Could you post a source for this? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you post a source that would explain why you're objecting to the material on the US DOLLAR, but you started go on to soapbox about GOLD? Also, could you post sources indicating that the "fed hosing the economy to kingdom-come prevented Schiff's predictions" is a prominent view? BigK HeX (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, you've mis-quoted something, that's not what the IP posted. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Also (and possibly more important), could you help the editors on this talk page understand how your comment is meant to improve the article, instead of just being an unproductive discussion on the topic itself? BigK HeX (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

To me, it looks like good faith input on Schiff's verifiable and published outlook on the topic. The IP might not be aware that talk page input is more helpful with a source, without which, some editors may mistakenly take a short post like this as soapboxing. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is that sourcing is irrelevant. Had he provided sources that "Gold has continually out-preformed the market and is now setting record highs on a near daily basis" ... then what? It suggests no effect on the article.

If the IP actually managed to source that Schiff's 2002 views were justifiable... again, what? How does that affect the critique from Wall Street Journal which is described in the article?

Even with sources, the original post of this thread would not point to improvements in the article (largely because the above assertions are, at best, only indirectly related to material in the article). I am baffled as to why a post of pretty clear soapboxing has prompted such a tenacious defense.... BigK HeX (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Who is being "tenacious"? You've twice tried to hide verifiable and good faith input here from an IP who is likely only unaware of the need for sources. Given the verifiable collapse of the dollar lately, the article narrative is straightforwardly out of date (at best), which the IP has helpfully noted. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Or ... alternatively, you've twice reverted my edits to defend comments that represent little more than unproductive soapboxing, since even with sources there is nothing that I can see in the comment that could be used to improve the article.

In any case, claims that the IP have helped note anything of import are dubious. Schiff has been calling for hyperinflation of the dollar, so surely the anon-IP hasn't helped point out anything useful with regard to the article on that point. The material in the article is sourced, and there's nothing in his comment (or your source) that shows that the critique of Schiff's predictions within the source is wrong. If the topic is gold prices, then Schiff called for gold to be valued at 2000 USD almost a year ago .... obviously, that never happened, so I don't see how the anon-IP's post could help to improve the article with anything there.

The treatment of the anon-IP's post isn't really a big deal to me, though I am again intrigued by your actions on this article. BigK HeX (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken, Schiff has not been calling for (advocating) hyperinflation of the dollar. Moreover, you have not yet fixed your misquotation of the IP's post. As for "intrigued," we both know what you mean by that and I don't think it's helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I just want to make a few comments: The statements about a weak dollar/euro value are mistaken. The dollar is still up a bit from where it was at the start of the recession, e.g. go here. And even if the the dollar lost value to most other currencies, Schiff would still be wrong because he predicted a dollar collapse, which didn't happen. I don't see how the Fed could have prevented a dollar collapse because they increased the money supply from the early 2000s up to the start of the recession, which normally weakens the dollar... So I think we should leave the parts of the article that mention Schiff's predictions as is.--Dark Charles (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Your original research ("I don't see how") can't be cited in the article. However, my worry here has been that good faith comments about article content were hatted (hidden). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, about the Fed. supporting the dollar, though I was never advocating putting it in the article. However, I did disproved the following statement: "Given the verifiable collapse of the dollar lately, the article narrative is straightforwardly out of date (at best)..." The point of my last comment was that the Schiff information that was originally mentioned in this section should remain as is.--Dark Charles (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As I was hoping to say at the outset, more sources on this would likely be very helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a WSJ member so I had find the article on the internet (here it is). At one point in time, I think the paragraph with the Schiff stuff we're talking about mentioned the dollar relative to gold, but I guess that got erased.--Dark Charles (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

unproductive soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Schiff's claims of a weak dollar are happening right now. Using the dollar index as a measure of the dollar's strength is ridiculous since every other central bank is debasing their currency at epic rates. In relation to gold, which is currently the only functional barometer of the dollar's real purchasing power, the dollar has lost a HUGE amount of value. Further, the dollar index has no relation to CPI (which is a massively manipulated grossly distorted government statistic), but even if we take the government's own CPI numbers as valid - we still have core inflation occurring. Schiff specifically talks about inflation, hyper-inflation, and how it relates to gold in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPIhkIvevYw Schiff states we "may" have hyper-inflation, that we currently have inflation, and that we SHOULD be experiencing deflation, but we aren't because Bernanke is in there pumping the markets with QE like a savage. Schiff has dozens of videos on his channel and practically all of them comment on this issue in some way. Here's one where he specifically addresses his critics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSAtsvSaX5I 158.61.151.200 (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC) ...and that long-winded screed on "gold vs the US Dollar" tells us about what improvements for the article? Or did you mistake this page for a political forum where you could "educate" us heathens about the wonders of Peter Schiff? BigK HeX (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC) I second BigK HeX. The first comment could be interpreted as constructive. The one above is clearly soapboxing.--Dark Charles (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Yup - but just throw a WP:HAT around it and move on, no need for drama. Ravensfire (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC) BigK, civility please. You can get your point across without the acrimony. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not unproductive soapboxing when it SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THE CRITICISMS LEVELED AGAINST SCHIFF IN THE ARTICLE. If this rebuttal is not allowed to stand in the discussion section, then the criticism against Schiff in the main article should be removed. - Schiff's claims of a weak dollar are happening right now. Using the dollar index as a measure of the dollar's strength is ridiculous since every other central bank is debasing their currency at epic rates. In relation to gold, which is currently the only functional barometer of the dollar's real purchasing power, the dollar has lost a HUGE amount of value. Further, the dollar index has no relation to CPI (which is a massively manipulated grossly distorted government statistic), but even if we take the government's own CPI numbers as valid - we still have core inflation occurring. Schiff specifically talks about inflation, hyper-inflation, and how it relates to gold in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPIhkIvevYw Schiff states we "may" have hyper-inflation, that we currently have inflation, and that we SHOULD be experiencing deflation, but we aren't because Bernanke is in there pumping the markets with QE like a savage. Schiff has dozens of videos on his channel and practically all of them comment on this issue in some way. Here's one where he specifically addresses his critics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSAtsvSaX5I 158.61.151.200 (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Is't this section supposed to be Austrian criticism of mainstream practices? So why does it read as a criticism of the Austrians? 198.62.98.200 (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

~~I second 198s assessment of the content in this section. As it currently stands, this section reads as a criticism OF the Austrian school rather than criticisms made BY the Austrian school. As there is another (much larger, I might add) section of this article specifically dedicated to criticism of the Austrian school, I am moving the criticisms of the Austrian school contained in this section to the appropriate section. Cutty2k (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Austrian analysis of current global economy

Doug Noland's Credit Bubble Bulletin Aug30, 2002 (written from the perspective of the Austrian School)as published by PrudentBear.com (David Tice & Associates)

Given the global economic catastrophe of 2007-09 (and its ongoing repercussions), it is worthwhile to hear what an "Austrian" analyst had to say back in mid-2002 in response to Greenspan's Jackson Hole speech of 2002.

begin quote "While Dr.Greenspan's Jackson Hole speech today focused on Federal Reserve policy and asset Bubbles, it is not surprising that he chose to avoid any mention of debt issuance data or the expanding real estate Bubble. I hope economists, young and old, students of economics and markets, formal or otherwise, as well as us aspiring Credit and economic analysts, will carefully read and ponder Chairman Greenspan's speech. It is one for the history books. For one, it rather concisely packages the failed (and hopelessly stubborn) economic doctrine of the Greenspan era. It is essentially an elaborate refinement of the previous "you can't recognize a bubble until it bursts" nonsense...First of all, it is flawed to place stock market Bubbles at the epicenter of economic analysis. The US equity Bubble was only one (conspicuous) component of the ongoing Great Credit Bubble. It is, moreover, simply failed doctrine for Dr.Greenspan to completely disregard the Credit system when discussing asset bubbles, especially considering the revolutionary developments and unprecedented expansion experienced over the past decade. Not once in Greeenspan's speech doeS he use the word 'Credit'. There is no mention of lending excess, money or Credit expansion, destabilizing speculation, the overly aggressive financial sector, or the expansive mortgage finance super-industry. No mention of junk bonds, agency debt, mortgage or asset-backed securities, bank loans, or other credit instruments that provided the purchasing power for the boom now turning bust. After shunning his responsibility for protecting the stability of our financial system, Dr.Greenspan would today like us to believe that it was outside of the control of the Fed to prevent the stock market Bubble. While we would certainly dispute this point, we in the past did write that to get the developing Bubble under control would have required only three phone calls, and they would have been local calls to leading instigators of Credit excess: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Bank System. And a few additional New York calls to speak with Goldman, Merrill, JPMorganChase, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup could have worked wonders. These institutions evolved into the core of an expansive and uncontrolled Credit mechanism and Chairman Greenspan had a courtside seat next to the players (the coach or the trainer?) Any analysis that ignores the key role played by the ballooning financial sector and leveraged speculation is a disservice and intellectual injustice. Greenspan goes so far as to state, 'It is generally the changing risk preferences of investors, not of corporate managers, that govern the mix of risk investment in an economy... to be sure, manager's personal sense of risk aversion can sometimes influence the capital investment process, but it is probably a secondary effect relative to the vagaries of investor psychology.' No way; this is erroneous analysis. An uncontrolled Credit system and monetary excess will reward risk-taking, reckless spending, and destabilizing speculation, while nurturing the resulting financial and economic maladjustments. Monetary recklessness ensures the unstable vagaries of the marketplace, and propels the dominance of speculators over true investors throughout the equity, Credit and currency markets. The responsibility of financial and economic instability lies first and foremost with the accomodative Federal Reserve and the ungoverned financial sector, not the 'vagaries of investor psychology'. Have we learned nothing from history?" end quote

This article was written in mid-2002. Analysts from an Austrian School persuasion saw more clearly the unfolding bubble and expected it to end badly, which it did in 2007-09. Analysts approaching the issue from the standpoint of interventist economics mostly did not expect the catastrophe of 2008. For example, a review of articles in The Economist prior to August 2007 shows that their writers and editors did not see the catastrophe unfolding. This suggests at least that Austrian thinking deserves far more respect than it gets from mainstream economists.East of the Town Square (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

As stated above in the 'Criticism of mainstream practices' section of the talk page, the section as it is currently written reads as a criticism OF Austrian economics, which already has its own section further on in the article. I am new to Wikipedia, so am unable to enact the appropriate changes. I am not advocating for the removal of any information, merely its relocation to a more appropriate section. It is with this in mind that I request an editor who is able to enact the following change:

In the section titled "Criticism of mainstream practices" change:

Austrians hold their methodology to be superior to the scientific method and empiricism, principles which mainstream economists strive to follow. On the Austrian critiques of mainstream economics, economist Bryan Caplan has argued that, "Mises and Rothbard reject the foundations of modern neoclassical economics too quickly, and their substitutes are inadequate."[10] In their rejection of mainstream practices, Austrians have argued that mainstream economics has an unsatisfactory record of prediction, citing the Global Financial Crisis as an example.[49][50] Another example cited by Austrians is Keynesian economist Paul Samuelson's claim, as late as 1989, that socialism was economically out-performing capitalism.[51][52] In response, some mainstream economists have pointed out that Austrian school economists do not have a better record at prediction. Accoding to Mark Skousen, adherents of Austrian economics failed in their timing or description of financial crises; as, for example, Ludwig von Mises's failed prediction regarding a collapse of the British pound,[53] and Peter Schiff's prediction that the late-2000s financial crisis would cause the U.S. dollar to weaken significantly (the opposite occurred causing significant client losses according to reports from 2009).[54]

to

Austrians hold their methodology to be superior to the scientific method and empiricism, principles which mainstream economists strive to follow. In their rejection of mainstream practices, Austrians have argued that mainstream economics has an unsatisfactory record of prediction, citing the Global Financial Crisis as an example.[49][50] Another example cited by Austrians is Keynesian economist Paul Samuelson's claim, as late as 1989, that socialism was economically out-performing capitalism.[51][52]

In the section titled "Criticism of the Austrian School" append the following to the bottom of the section:

On the Austrian critiques of mainstream economics, economist Bryan Caplan has argued that, "Mises and Rothbard reject the foundations of modern neoclassical economics too quickly, and their substitutes are inadequate."[10] Some mainstream economists have pointed out that Austrian school economists do not have a better record at prediction than their mainstream counterparts. Accoding to Mark Skousen, adherents of Austrian economics failed in their timing or description of financial crises; as, for example, Ludwig von Mises's failed prediction regarding a collapse of the British pound,[53] and Peter Schiff's prediction that the late-2000s financial crisis would cause the U.S. dollar to weaken significantly (the opposite occurred causing significant client losses according to reports from 2009).[54]

I believe this presents the information in a more appropriate manner while losing none of the current content. I am aware that the footnotes will have to be updated as well, but I am unsure of that process. (I would imagine there is a better method than changing all the numbers by hand, but I am unsure of what it would be.) Cutty2k (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. We don't have to worry about renumbering references, it's handled automatically by the software using <ref> tags (see WP:INCITE for more details). Thanks for the request! — Bility (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Is David Gordon notable by wikipedia's standards?

Lawrencekhoo:

"per WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL, paid writer should not be given equal validity as a Nobel Laureate"

I was content to have responses to Krugman's assessment of ABCT either right after the argument, or in a "responses" section. I didn't really care. But, apparently, we're not supposed to have arguments of nobel prize winners against non-nobel prize (or comparable) winners. Actually, WP:YESPOV says you can't put a "supermajority view" next to a "superminority" view. I'd hardly call ABCT a "superminority view." Is WP:YESPOV's example of the relative popularities of holocaust-denialism and the conventional assessment of what happened really in class with the relative popularities of ABCT and refutation of ABCT? I don't think so.

Byelf2007 (talk) 31 May 2011

Articles are not a 'back and forth' between different viewpoints. They should present the viewpoints according to the weight given by significant notable sources. Viewpoints without significant notable adherents should not be included. For example, the wikipedia article on acupuncture does not include a rebuttal from an acupuncturist following every single negative statement about acupuncture from the medical community. Only significant notable arguments should be included. LK (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

reply: "Viewpoints without significant notable adherents should not be included." Ron Paul isn't notable?

Notable by what standard? The "WP:YESPOV" webpage you cited gives the example of Holocaust-denialism.

Byelf2007 (talk) 31 May 2011

If you have a reply from Ron Paul to any of the criticisms raised, please do cite and include them. His objections to academic criticisms may not bear much weight though, that is not his area of expertise.

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Would the opinion of a staff writer at a partisan think tank be given space in a Britannica article? I think not. LK (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

reply:

Okay, so I take it the "viewpoint" in this case is Gordon's response to Krugman's argument and not support of ABCT. I see your point. However, I don't see why David Gordon isn't notable. He's written 5 books and has contributed to 4 magazines (two of which can't possibly be described as "think tanks").

What is your standard for notability? You haven't provided one. The burden is on you to provide one. Otherwise, I can go ahead and say "Ah, we can't have this reply to the Pope's argument immediately following it, because that guy's only a minister." etc.

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_limit_content_within_an_article

Byelf2007 (talk) 1 June 2011

In an article where mentioned criticisms are restricted to those from Nobel laureates and other highly-respected economists, the opinion of an unknown staff writer is clearly not notable. Please don't edit war to include it. LK (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

reply:

Notable BY WHAT STANDARD? Where's the wikipedia link that describes this?

Also, aren't you just as much in an edit-war as I am?

Byelf2007 (talk) 1 June 2011

WP:UNDUE has something about this. Viewpoints which are only shared by few and which do not have prominent adherents do not deserve to be mentioned in Wikipedia.TheFreeloader (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

reply: Prominent by what standard?

Here're excerpts:

"In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space."

Pretty straight forward.

"the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view DIFFERS [emphasis mine] from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."

I think it makes sense to have Krugman's view and Gordon's view next to each other to clearly illustrate the difference.

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view."

I assume this applies to articles that aren't about the minority view. Also, how's a "small minority" different from just a "minority"? The "WP:YESPOV" webpage LK cited gives the example of Holocaust-denialism as a "superminority" (which I assume is the same as a "small minority").

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."

Again, pretty straight forward.

I think LK's views on the whole nobel laureate issue are made more clear by what he said in section 1 of this discussion page 'Krugman's claim about increased spending':

"Do you truly believe that you are smarter than a Nobel prize winner?"

Finally, I think the context of "Viewpoints which are only shared by few and which do not have prominent adherents do not deserve to be mentioned in Wikipedia." means with respect to an article that isn't about the minority viewpoint (otherwise, there would be no 'holocaust-denialism' page).

In reply to 'Notable by what standard?', the answer is it depends on the article and the notability of the participants in a debate. In a debate over the name of a town (see Fucking, Austria), the opinion of a prominant local businessman is notable. In the debate about Austrian School methodology, with multiple Nobel laureates and other prominent economists weighing in on the subject, it is laughable to claim that the opinion of a staff writer at a partisan think tank is notable and should be given equal validity. Per WP:PARITY, a rough parity of sources must be adhered to. LK (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

reply:

on "equal validity"

"There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship."

Accepted by whom? I assume this means "99.9%-ish of people," kinda like the idea that Nazi Germany killed 6 million people. Do 99.9% of economists agree with Krugman's critique?

on "parity of sources"

"if an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review."

The Lugvig von Mises Institute's publication lacks peer review?

Furthermore, you yourself are not being specific about your standards here. Krugman is also a staff writer. Are we supposed to only let other economics nobel winner's arguments immediately follow another economics nobel winner? What, in your opinion, would qualify Gordon's response to immediately follow Krugman's? And, then, assuming you do that, you have to show me that this squares with wikipedia's standards. It says, in effect, "don't give equal weight to theories which are PLAUSIBLE [like ABCT] if it's as popular as saying the Apollo moon landings are fake among those who have seriously studied the issue". Obviously, ABCT is more popular with economists than the moon landing being faked/holocaust denialism beliefs [which wikipedia cites as examples of things which can't be given equal weight] among those who've seriously studied those issues.

Your argument is basically "Don't give equal weight to people who have unequal recognition." Without specific standards, your logic is infinitely regressive. For example, the argument of someone with one economics nobel prize couldn't follow the argument of someone with two. What about arguments among two economists which haven't won any economics nobel prizes? Do we go by popularity?

What makes the nobel prize so special with respect to our debate? Should an economist known to very few people with an economics nobel prize get more weight than an economist as popular as Krugman with no economics nobel prize? Just because there's a lot of arguments by economics nobel winning economists in the Austrian School article doesn't mean every argument in it has to be from economics nobel winners.

1 - There are also arguments from non-economics nobel prize winners in the article (besides Gordon): Jeffrey Sachs and Bryan Caplan, for example.

2 - They are there because people put them in there. It's not like there's a wikipedia guideline page that says "If you're writing an article about economics, you'd better not have arguments by non-economics nobel winners follow those by economics nobel winners."

The specific examples the guideline pages you've cited give examples of (with respect to popularity) Moon Hoax Theory and Holocaust Denialism and (with respect to validity) publications lacking peer review. Do these apply to Gordon? I don't see how.

Yes, YOU think it's ridiculous to have an argument by someone who's published multiple books and written for multiple publications with no economics nobel prize follow one by an economics nobel prize winner. Where's the wikipedia guideline page that makes it CLEAR this is correct?

Just because it says "Don't give the same weight of moon-hoaxism to the conventional story" doesn't mean it also means "don't have arguments by non-economics nobel prize winners follow those by economics nobel prize winners." The only page that talks about the status of the writers (instead of the popularity of the theories) which you've (finally) cited says "They have to have peer review." That's it.

Byelf2007 (talk) 3 June 2011

Edit request from Pedroj012, 8 June 2011

Change "Accoding to Mark Skousen" to "According to Mark Skousen"

Pedroj012 (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Predictive ability - false information and insufficient referencing

The slur about Mises' alleged prediction says absolutely nothing about the circumstances of it. Did it actually happen (where's the evidence?), was it based on extensive reseach or theorizing, or was it a spontaneous comment at a lecture? The footnote says that a WIFE of someone claimed that Mises said something. How the hell can this meet the criteria for realiable information? If it indeed was just a spontaneous reaction to the news, it has no validity whatsoever. Samuelson spent a good deal of his career, several DECADES in fact, with studying the Soviet Union. Do I really have to explain the difference between what (appears to be) a spontaneous comment and a several decade long researched and held opinion?

Now, if someone can produce a book or an article in which Mises gives substantial thought and reasoning for why he thinks the pound will become worthless in a week, please link to that. If the current footnote is the only support for this claim there is, then the slur about Mises should be removed. However, if there is an article or some sort of scholarly work to be found, the slur should stay.

The slur about Schiff is demonstrably false. His timing was off by a few months but that is totally irrelevant. His thesis held completely true. The US dollar made record lows throughout 2009, especially against gold but also against other commodities and currencies. This trend has continued since 2009, with silver making 50, 60 and 70 year highs against the USD and gold breaking through the 1,600 barrier. All of this is well documented and known to everybody so to claim that Schiff was proven wrong is an utterly, demonstrably false statement. That is why I have removed it.

Please note that just because someone SAID he was wrong doesn't make it so. Misessus (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A clarification on the Peter Schiff issue. Firstly, the Global Financial Crisis was predicted by many Austrians. Schiff was far from the only one. Secondly, economic predictions such as "there will be a depression" or "the value of the currency will fall" is not about timing as on what day it will occur. Schiff even said that whether the crash hits in 2007 or 2008 is immaterial, the point was that the crash will inevitably come if the same policies are pursued. And BigK, I said already that if you want Mises' alleged pound prediction to be mentioned, you'll have to do better than an old wife's tale. Cite an article written by Mises in which he by applying Austrian theory and methodology explains why the British pound will become worthless and within what time frame. And let me remind you that you are breaking the rules by not settling this issue on the talk page. Misessus (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the book that had the pound prediction stuff and didn't see it, so I'm fine with that part being removed. However, the other stuff should stay. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. I quote: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." The material you deleted was sourced. Your opinions about the material's truth are irrelevant here.--Dark Charles (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Peter Schiff reference was clearly not verifiable, as the US dollar dropped significantly throughout 2009 and have been dropping ever since, which is evidenced by constant record lows against commodities and other currencies. More importantly, it has dropped precisely for the reasons Schiff said. And when you talk about predictions in economics, they are never about timing, they are about explaining why certain actions and policies will have certain outcome in the future. Not even Samuelson tried to date his prediction, he said that the USSR will overtake the US economically and that it would probably happen by 1990 or, at the latest, by 2015. That is how general economic predictions are when it comes to timing. Schiff was proven completely right. To claim the momentary dollar strength disproves him is an utter distortion. Therefore, it will not stand.Misessus (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

On Schiff stuff, agree with you Dark Charles. Missesus's willingly to pretend that there isn't an entire WSJ write-up on the inaccuracy of Schiff's predictions, and his belief that his own word as a Wikipedia editor is supposed to trump these sources is pretty ridiculous. BigK HeX (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

On the Mises prediction, the citation of the source is pretty complete, and even includes a direct quote from the source. Perhaps try checking again, Dark Charles. BigK HeX (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As I have laboriously explained, the fact that the US dollar gained strength momentarily and entirely as a result of what turned out to be a false sense of security, does not mean Schiff's prediction is wrong. Economic predictions are about trends, and Schiff's prediction was exactly that, a trend that has been proven true even in 2009. Thus, it makes absolutely no difference that there is a WSJ article, something I've never denied. Again it shows how little you know of economics in general and Austrian economics in particular. You re not qualified to edit this page, BigK, so go vandalize some other article.

Regarding the Mises issue, it will clearly not suffice that someone's wife claims to have heard Mises say something at a seminar. What is required is an article written by Mises himself in which he explains why the pound will become worthless, and using Austrian economic theory to reach that conclusion.

It is such unbelievable hypocrisy that anything will go as a source when the claim is critical of the Austrian School. This level of sourcing would NEVER be accepted in the Keynes article, nor should it. But not only that, critical claims against the Austrian school doesn't even have to be true, they only need to be claimed. I will not accept this bullying and demonstrable distortion from the likes of you, BigK. I will not have it said that Schiff was proven wrong when the facts clearly prove him right. What the hell is going on here?Misessus (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please listen to Thomas Woods distinction between timing and trends (broad statements about the future). You will find it at approx. 7 minutes. http://media.mises.org/mp3/misescircle-houston10/02_Woods_MCHouston_2010.mp3

Here are some facts about the USD vs. gold:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/16/markets/gold_record/index.htm http://www.taxfreegold.co.uk/highestevergoldpriceinusdollars.html

As the chart shows, the USD made record lows against gold several times during 2009 and has continued that trend ever since, with hitting new all time lows in July 2011. The same can be said for other currencies and commodities, with silver hitting 50, 60 and 70 year old highs against the USD, and the Swiss franc trading at more than one dollar. The author of the WSJ article fails to understand the basic concept of economic predictions. To cite it in this article would be blatantly misleading and factually wrong. The WP-rule cited does not allow for that. If it did, you could cite Mein Kampf as a source for proving that Jews are in fact an inferior race. Misessus (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet again, User:Misessus posts comments as if his personal WP:OR is supposed to override the article's RS. He is showing very little understanding of how Wikipedia works, if not quite a lot of contempt for the editorial process here. BigK HeX (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

To Misessus: The criterion for inclusion isn't truth. It's variability, as I wrote before. Please read WP:V. You need to understand the rules. You don't.--Dark Charles (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

BigK, I've yet to see you make a case for your editing. Instead, all you do is give ad hominem attacks against me. You've admitted your contempt for both myself and the Austrian School before many times. That fact alone disqualifies you from editing this page. As for respecting the editorial process, it was I who called for the protection of this article and the settling of this issue on the talk page. It was YOU who started the edit war in your typical arrogant way.

Charles, surely you mean to say that the criterion is verifiability, not variability. I do understand the rules. Verifiability does not simply mean that the claim one makes has been made by someone else. If that was the case, one could as I said prove that Jews are an inferior race by references to Nazi rhetoric. It would be quite easy to verify that Nazis made this claim, but the making of the claim does not make it true, and it is the CLAIM that is supposed to be verifiable, not the fact that the claim was made. Again, the mere fact that Hitler claimed Jews to be inferior does not make it so.

In this particular case, I think it is obvious that the only one who's even tried to make his case is me. This section proves that. What it also proves is that neither BigK nor Charles (nor the WSJ-article author) understands what "economic predictions" means. It does NOT mean that the value of the dollar will be thus and so against this or that commodity or currency at that specific time. This is mere speculation. Economic predictions are broad statements like the one Schiff actually made, i.e. that the dollar will lose value over time due to this or these factors. Lo and behold, that is exactly what happened in 2009 and has been happening ever since. Also, the claim that Schiff's customers lost money, although certainly MADE is certainly not VERIFIABLE, considering the huge gains Schiff's clients have made by being long on commodities like gold and silver, and exposed to non-US stocks and currencies.

The only way that claim that Schiff was wrong could be included is if in the very next sentence, the article would explain that the author didn't understand the concept of economic predictions and that the facts thus proved his claim wrong. In other words, if the claim is inserted it must be immediately cancelled out in the very next sentence of the very same paragraph. I simply see no point in that, which is why I think it shouldn't be there in the first place. If you want to fill WP with verifiably false statements (after all, truth and facts does not matter on WP), then you can put that in the author's WP-article. Misessus (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability means that claims put on Wikipedia must cite reliable sources, if they are challenged or are likely to be challenged. What you're doing is erasing sourced material because you don't think it's true. That's against the rules.--Dark Charles (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Charles. You're still wrong, you're still not understanding the concept of economic predictions and you're still not making the case for including the claim. But answer me this: Does the rule mean that one could provide a claim proving that Jews are an inferior race by referring to Nazi scientific research? If no, why should the Schiff-claim be included here? If yes, shouldn't that rule be changed so that WP can preserve at least SOME integrity? But now you talk about RELIABLE sources. That's a relief. However, as I've laboriously demonstrated, the cited article cannot be said to be reliable since the author either doesn't understand the concept of economic prediction, or is talking about something completely different, in which case it has no place in that section to begin with. I've noticed that as soon as people run out of arguments, they start citing WP-rules as if that was some sort of substitute for the inability to make one's case. And indeed, most of the time and like you're doing right now, the cited WP-rule does in fact NOT support the claim you and BigK are making. And that's symptomatic too. Those who most eagerly cite WP-rules don't in fact understand how they are to be applied.

And as I've said. The only way to include the claim you want to include would be to cancel it out immediately in the very next sentence. Now, are you at all able to argue the actual points of this debate or is references to WP-rules that don't apply the only thing you're capable of? Misessus (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I'm citing rules because that's how Wikipedia works. What you're doing is original research. I'm not debating your evidence, because it's fundamentally a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. If you like, we can submit the sources cited for the stuff you erased to the reliable source message board and see if they're okay. As for your point, you wouldn't be able to find a reliable source, as defined in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. However, suppose that we lived in NAZI Germany and as such those ugly "scientific" claims about jews were considered reliable sources, then yes they would satisfy Wikipedia's policy to be included. Those are the rules. Your opinions about the truth of a claim are completely irrelevant to Wikipedia's criteria about what should and should not be included. Like I said before: You don't understand the rules. Please read the links I've provided so that you can learn.--Dark Charles (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Belive it or not, sir, but I've noticed that you cite the rules. You don't seem to have noticed that the cited rule does not warrant the inclusion of the claim, unless said claim is completely cancelled out in the next sentence.

You claim that I'm doing original reasearch. That is factually, demonstrably wrong. The definition of economic predicition is very old and explained very clearly by Dr. Woods. Take a listen. To measure the value of the dollar (or any currency) against gold is the most traditional and most widely used method there is. Pray tell me, what is original about that?

Actually, it would be quite easy to find "reliable" sources claiming the white, aryan race to be superior. It was a widely and largely unchallenged held belief well into the 20th century, even within the scientific community. You know this of course, so now you're flipflopping back and forth, navigating through the logical quagmire you've made for yourself.

You can keep whining about me not understanding the rules until the cows come home. Either the article stays as it is, or you include the Schiff-claim with a complete refutation of that claim in the very next sentence. From a practical point of view, wouldn't it be simpler to let the article stand as it is? What would be the point of inserting claim that can be verified in the context that the claim itself was made, but then be utterly and completely refuted and nullified in the next sentence? What purpose would that serve, other than to yell out to the world that WP indeed doesn't care about the truth, so chances are that everything you read here is complete hogwash and authored by people who have no knowledge or understanding about the subject matter at hand? Misessus (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I mean "original research" in the sense specified on WP:OR. Anyway, your point that there are reliable scientific sources that claim that the Aryan race is superior to the Jews says more about you than Wikipedia. But that's for another day. What's clear to me now is this: You don't want to follow Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources or Wikipedia: Verifiability. What you want to do is only include stuff that you think is true. That's not how Wikipedia works. As far as me citing rules, I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record, but this is how Wikipedia works. You shouldn't edit here, if you can't stand Wikipedia's modus operandi.

Lastly, I'd like to restate my offer from before: We can submit the sources that you erased to the good source message board and see what the consensus is. --Dark Charles (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And so the innane whining continues. I've never claimed that Jews are an inferior race or that Aryans are superior, I'm simply explaining that by your logic, this could and indeed should be inserted all over WP. But we don't need to go to such extremes. I could insert claims that Keynes was wrong on everything he said by citing numerous sources. Something tells me I wouldn't be allowed to do that, yet that would be perfectly in line with WP-rules. You are indeed a broken record, the problem is that you simply don't understand the subject matter at hand, nor the implications of the rules you cite. As for what I believe to be true, I should like to see you explain that whether the USD has been on a steady decline since 2009 or not is just a matter of opinion, that there is no evidence to support either way. That promises to be a very entertaining read indeed!

Regarding your offer. This is what the text would look like, should we insist on inserting the bogus claim:

"In response, some mainstream economists have pointed out that Austrian school economists do not have a better record at prediction. Peter Schiff's prediction that the late-2000s financial crisis would cause the U.S. dollar to weaken significantly (the opposite occurred causing significant client losses according to reports from 2009). However, the authors completely omits the meaning of economic predictions. These are broad statements of a general nature, not precisely timed or time-limited assertions. Schiff predicted that the dollar would weaken significantly. Throughout 2009, the dollar fell significantly against commodities and other currencies, hitting several record lows during that year. The trend has continued and strengthended during 2010 and 2011, with gold breaking through the 1,600 UDS/ounce barrier in July 2011, setting an all time high against the USD. The evidence shows that not only were the authors' judgement premature, it was incorrect from an economic scientific point of view. As such, Schiff's prediction that the US dollar would weaken following the financial crisis is yet another example of the reliability of Austrian predictions, whereas the authors illustrate the point made by Austrians that mainstream economists are unreliable. Those of Schiff's clients that followed the advice of the authors and divested from commodities and foreign currencies in 2009, did in fact experience great losses. Those who followed Schiff's advice, however, have seen massive gains in the value of their portfolios."

Every single claim made in the paragraph above can be duly verified and have indeed already been verified by myself in this very section, inter alia by references to a CNN-article, which means the neutrality criterion is met. Besides, the heading of the article even says that Peter Schiff's prediction was RIGHT! Now, I ask you again: Wouldn't it be simpler, more practical and informative to simply leave the article as it stands? Could you please just answer this extremely simple yes-or-no question, or are you infact incapable of producing anything other than WP-rules? Misessus (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@Dark Charles: I would guess that you have witnessed for yourself the contempt that User:Misessus has for Wikipedia editing, and why editors such as myself and LK often find it counterproductive to try to help him accept WP policy. BigK HeX (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

BigK, it would be nice if you once, just once, actually could contribute to debate instead of playing the role of the bigot. Is this too much to ask? What are you even doing here? You know nothing of the subject matter, you're not interested in the integrity of the article. As a matter of fact, your stated goal is to vandalize the article as much as possible. Yet you keep citing WP-rules as if they didn't apply to you. And as I've said, I can accept the inclusion of the Schiff-claim, but that would require the complete refutation of that claim as illustrated above. Now I ask you the same thing I asked Charles: Wouldn't it be simpler and more informative to just keep the article as it is instead of inserting this bloated paragraph?

And just to be clear, the only contempt I have is for bigoted bullies like you and LK. Misessus (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is just about settled. Misessus' justification for his edit is simply original resource. Since the sources used in the stuff he erased are not being questioned in ways consistent with Wikipedia's policy, they stay. Thus Wikipedia's verifiability policy says the erased material is fine. If Misessus just wants to make fun of me for having the audacity to point out the rules, then I guess there's nothing else to discuss.--Dark Charles (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Play the world's smallest violin. As already stated, you can include the WSJ-article but if you do, the refutation goes in as well. The article cites client losses. Fair enough. Then the huge client gains have to be pointed out. I don't make fun of you for citing rules you don't seem to understand, I merely point out that neither you nor BigK understand the subject matter at hand, are clearly bigoted and unable to actually make a decent case for what you advocate. But by all means, include the WSJ-article. Make WP even more ridiculous, distorted and disingenuous than it already is. That is what WP-policy demands, isn't it? To shatter the integrity of all articles that aren't mainstream. Well, this is one article you won't shatter with your inane bullying. Misessus (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sec Break 1

One thing that Misessus is correct about is that this clause, "as, for example, Ludwig von Mises's failed prediction regarding a collapse of the British pound" should be removed from the article. Not because the source isn't reliable and verifiable, but because it's a blatant WP:UNDUE violation. Let's assume the story is 100% true. The random comments of one person made at a party do not constitute something of sufficient importance to be covered in a Wikipedia article about an entire school of economics which xe is a part of. Had this been a major claim that Mises made in a seminal academic work that was later proven false, then it might belong, but as it is, it's completely inappropriate here. I'll wait about a day to here some sort of response, but after that I'm going to remove the claim from the article. One thing that all editors need to understand is that being verified is merely the minimum threshold for inclusion--we do not include every single piece of verifiable information. We use our various other policies and good judgment to decide what goes in; here, WP:NPOV itself tells us not to emphasize something out of proportion to the importance of that thing in the real world. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I also looked at the Schiff prediction criticized by the WSJ; unfortunately, I don't have a subscription so I can't read it. From just the first section, though, it does appear to me to be appropriate, but I can't at all say for sure without reading the entire article. If someone would like to forward it to me, I could review it and give my opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The entire section on "Criticisms of Mainstream" needs to be reconsidered. As mainstream economists generally do not claim to be able to divine the timing of future events it makes for a rather hollow aspect to label as a "criticism". BigK HeX (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to hold off on that issue for right now? I mean, you don't have to, but I've found that it's nearly impossible to deal with a dozen different issues at once. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and balance are problems with that section. I don't have much objection if Mises goes (though Schiff should stay, IMO). I'm really not sure how to handle the balance issues myself, so I'll probably see what the Econ project members devise. BigK HeX (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with taking the Mises stuff out too.--Dark Charles (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(Not sure proper indentation...) Here's a link on Google books to a recent edition of Skousen's book with a mention of Urusla Hicks report on Mises' prediction on the gold standard. Given everything, I'd exclude it, though my reasons might be different than others mention. I'd exclude it because it's essentially given as a qualification on the otherwise impressive (to Skousen) predictive abilities of Mises. Any references which argue against the predictive ability of Austrians should be from writers explicitly doing that-arguing against their predictive ability. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a blog bit about the WSJ article in question on Schiff. I think I'd exclude that bit, because they're only criticizing one bit of investment strategy from one person who identifies with the Austrian school, there doesn't seem to be any broader connection to criticizing the predictive ability of the Austrian school. As such, it might be appropriate for Peter Schiff article, but it doesn't seem good for this article. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no dispute that Schiff proclaims to base his predictions on his Austrian School background and that he is a known representative of the school. Seems appropriate to me, at least as appropriate as the Samuelson stuff. BigK HeX (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Schiff might do that (I don't know enough about him to know how true it is for those specific predictions), but this is about how he's criticized, and I don't see the Austrianism in the criticism. It's too much of a reach. If I had to go for a specific policy, I'd say it's WP:UNDUE to put that much importance on this single tangentially-connected criticsm. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see my lengthy explanation in the section below. All agree that the Mises bit should be taken out, and there doesn't seem to be much support for the Schiff bit either. If the Schiff bit must be included, then it must also be followed by the complete refutation I provided earlier. I understand the urge to include examples of Austrians getting their predictions wrong, but isn't it time to face up to the fact that neither example offered qualify? Mises is completely out, as is Schiff.

Charles, stop reversing the edits. You clearly have no support (not even from yourself), which means you're vandalizing the page. I would urge all involved to move this particular discussion to the section below. Misessus (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, which has a very tight meaning here, see WP:Vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Read the discussion. There is no support for the previous edit. I reversed it. Leave it be until qualified sources are provided (which doesn't seem to be forthcoming). Misessus (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You should strike that crack you made about vandalism, it wasn't. Did you read the policy link? Calling it vandalism could be taken as a personal attack. This and going back and forth on edits before a straightforward consensus is reached will only thwart you in the end. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It was no crack. Read the discussion. There is no support for the Mises-bit and no real support for the Schiff-bit. Neither you or anyone else should revert because there is no support for it, nor has any adequate sources been provided. The only edit warriors here are those who fail to recognize that. I've been accused for vandalizing for much less. Misessus (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

BigK..."The Samuelson stuff", as you put, is worlds apart from Schiff. Firstly, Samuelson was the foremost Keynesian of his day and arguably the most influential mainstream economist during the post war period. His kept to his prediction all through the 1970s up until 1989. It is one of the most spectacularly misguided predictions in the history of economics, made by a nobel laureate and the foremost mainstream economist of his day. Are you actually comparing that to Schiff, who in fact was proven right by the facts? Are you seriously doing that? Misessus (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... I'm doing that. If the fringe criticisms of Samuelson stays, I see the commentary on Schiff as about as appropriate. BigK HeX (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm checking things just a little at the time. I think the criticism of Samuelson is almost appropriate. It would be appropriate because it's very explicit in criticizing Samuelson as a mainstream economist, with the particular prediction supposedly being an example of how mainstream predictions and the mainstream approach might go wrong. So, it's very on-target. However, it appears to be a working paper, and it seems that if this is a common or important criticism by the Austrians, there should be a published source (presumably in something like QJAE). For the time being, since it's a working paper, I'd pull it out. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is no fringe criticism of Samuelson. He made the prediction in his own text book "Economics", the most widely used text book in history. He maintained this prediction for 15 odd years, until the very end of the USSR. To say that he was wrong is no fringe criticism, it isn't even criticism per se. It is a statement of fact. Or is anyone suggesting that the USSR did in fact overtake the US? And as I've said before, if the Schiff-bit must be included, so must the refutation of the entire, demonstrably false WSJ claim. Misessus (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In this context, I think whether it's fringe or not is pretty irrelevant, since lots of Austrian stuff could be described as fringe, but would still fit here. Is the criticism fringe for the Austrian school? The prose currently in the article implies that it's a generally accepted criticism. That may be the case, but if so it should have a better source than an unpublished working paper. As for the stuff about what Samuelson did or didn't say and whether the USSR did or didn't collapse and the meaning of all that, those are separate issues. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Woods gave a lecture on Keynesian predictions, in which he explained the Samuelson prediction in some detail. I can source that if you want. Since we're talking about Samuelson's prediction, I think it is very important what he said and when he said it. As explained, he said it for a long time, during most of the 1970s through the entire 1980s. Where he said it is even more important: it was in his famous and extremely widely used text book "Economics". The prediction stayed in edition after edition, up until the 1989 edition. The section is about examples of mainstream economists getting things spectacularly wrong. I would argue that Samuelson's prediction is the most spectacular of them all, even if the field is very strong. Do you want me to source Wood's lecture or do you want an excerpt from his book? Misessus (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Has Woods written about it, or is there a transcript of the lecture? CRETOG8(t/c) 22:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a transcript, but it is mentioned here and there in the QJAE. I can link to the actual lecture too. Misessus (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fuzzy on Wikipedia practice in regard to videos, but it seems like something in text would be better. (Note: I haven't checked the source out yet. What you're saying sounds promising, but I'm not committing that I'll wind up approving of it. I gather others have not.) CRETOG8(t/c) 22:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No one else has bothered to listen to it or even comment the suggestion. That's the best way of achieving consensus: ignore everything that contradicts your position. But do listen to the lecture, it is very informative in many ways. Misessus (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Elsewhere you mentioned around minute 7 of the Woods lecture audio. He doesn't mention Samuelson near there that I can tell (I listened to a couple minutes). Can you provide a time to listen? (This is one of the problems with audio/video as references, is they aren't searchable to verify.) CRETOG8(t/c) 03:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen much discussion about Hazlitt and Bretton Woods, but it looks like it could possibly belong, although that might be undue weight. I'm not so much saying that Hazlitt's predictive ability was great, as that Hazlitt is explicitly blowing his own horn about his predictive ability, which... um... might fit. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I included it because the Bretton Woods system was designed by Keynes and its collapse was one of the most significant events of the 20th century. It combined the predictive ability of the Austrians with another spectacular failure of mainstream economics. Very suitable for this section, I would say. Misessus (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As with other stuff, it doesn't really matter what faults Keynes and the mainstream had, or what virtues Hazlitt and the Austrians had. What matters is that the source looks to me like a pretty clear example of an Austrian, writing as an Austrian, saying that their predictions/analyses are better than the mainstream. That fits the section. I worry about WP:UNDUE because it's someone writing about how awesome their own predictions were, which seems like something which could occur even if other Austrians weren't impressed. A different Austrian source complimenting Hazlitt on his predictions would be a better reference in this regard. I'd still lean toward including it, barring a good substitute. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that sounds mostly like an easy path to synthesis. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. Do you mean that it would be better to stick with Hazlitt directly, avoiding another source? Or avoid another source, period, with no comment on whether Hazlitt should be included, or...? No argument here, I really just don't understand what you're implying. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that Hazlitt can be cited straightforwardly and other sources can be cited too. WP:UNDUE has mostly to do with giving readers some notion of what the sourcs say and not overly citing a slice of them in a way which keeps that from happening. In an encyclopedia, it's very ok to cite sources which don't agree or quite match up and write them up as such, many readers have more trust when they see it happen. If I've missed what you're getting at, please let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is an article by Lew Rockwell discussiong Hazlitt's thoughts on the Bretton Woods system. http://mises.org/daily/4511 Would this suffice as an additional source together with Hazlitt's own book to get this bit included in the section? Misessus (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That works for me. Gwen Gale might disagree, but I think the simplest approach would be to only use that article as the source, even though it refers to Hazlitt. CRETOG8(t/c) 09:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That works for me too then. Gwen, what are your thoughts on this? Misessus (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the Rockwell cite is indeed easiest and it'd be helpful to readers if Hazlitt himself were cited too. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Gwen. Does this then man that I can add the Hazlitt-bit to the article, but using only the Rockwell-cite and not both? Misessus (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Misessus, I'd strongly suggest you wait at least a day before adding anything which could be interpreted as reversion (including the Hazlitt bit), given the recent edit-warring. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Noted. I'll hold off for a while yet. Misessus (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I don't think the Breton Woods stuff should be in the article, because:

1. The article itself said the Keynes didn't get what he wanted.
2. The dollar was convertible to gold at a rate of $35 to an ounce, so the article isn't quite right.
3. Most mainstream economist, since the 70s, have supported flexible exchange rates.

I'm pretty sure I can find sources for any of those three claims.--Dark Charles (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how any of those claims are relevant. The Bretton Woods System was immensely inflationary and it was that very inflation that caused its collapse. This is what Hazlitt said would happen. What does it matter that Keynes didn't get exactly what he wanted? It wouldn't have changed anything, and the system was perfectly in line with mainstream economic theory and methodology. And what exactly is the article wrong about? Also, what mainstream economists have been advocating since the 1970s is, if possible, even more irrelevant for the issue at hand. The claim was that Hazlitt predicted the collapse of the Bretton Woods system due to its inflationary nature. The system collapsed due to rampant inflation. I really don't understand the relevance of any your objections. Misessus (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What section were you planning on placing this material in? I thought you were going to put the information in as a criticism of mainstream economics. Anyway, the impression I got from reading the article (actually just a little over half it), was that this was a completely artificial peg to the dollar. But the fact is that the dollar was pegged to gold at a rate of $35 to one ounce. So it doesn't look like your source is good. Please set me straight if I'm misunderstanding something on either of my comments.--Dark Charles (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Dark Charles, I don't particularly think your objections matter. The point is that with the Hazlitt book and the Rockwell article, it's verifiable that Austrians are claiming these things. How much does it matter whther they're right in their claims? CRETOG8(t/c) 04:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, where is this going to be put? I don't think it's reasonable to put it in the Criticism of mainstream practices subsection, because most mainstream economists agree that flexible exchange rates are best (again, I can provide a source for that if requested). I need to know how this is going to be formulated.--Dark Charles (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be put in the "Predictive abilities" section. Personally, I think that heading should be removed and have everything in one section "Criticisms of Mainstream practices", but that is details. Regarding the peg, no one is claiming the dollar wasn't redeemable in gold, the point is that this set rate itself was artificial because it bore no relation to the amount of dollars vs. the amount of gold. Due to massive inflation, 1 ounce of gold became much more valuable than 35, which is also why Nixon shut the gold window. There were too many dollars out there, and exchanging them 35 dollars for 1 ounce of gold became physically impossible. Just as Hazlitt had predicted. Bretton Woods was devised by the leading mainstream economists of the day. The fact that they started to advocate flexible exchange rates -after- the BW system had broken down is hardly to their credit. Misessus (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I guess I would be fine with some edit that contained the material. However, I searched around for straw man representations of opinions, and I found the following: "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community." That's part of WP:PSCI. So I'm going to object if the edit claims that most mainstream economists support the Bretton Woods system.--Dark Charles (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy .... the next response should be interesting. BigK HeX (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

BigK, I'm pretty sure that response violated some WP-policy, it sounded too much like me :)

DarkCharles, I don't understand the point of your last comment at all. BW was devised by Lord Keynes himself. The fact that it didn't go 100% according to his plan (instead 99%), doesn't change the fact that it was very much in line with mainstream thinking, because it was still a government controlled, global system engineered by the leading mainstream economists by the day and run by state and superstate institutions, chiefly the US central bank, the World Bank and the IMF. To even suggest that the BW-system hadn't the support of mainstream economists is a blatant lie, and I had hoped we had come passed that.

But more importantly, the BW-bit was an example of the predictive ability of Austrian economists, in this case Hazlitt. That is why it was to be included. In other words, your objection (a strawman if I ever saw one) isn't just unfounded, it completely misses the target. If this is all you can do, Charles, I will include the text your objection notwithstanding. I have all the support I need, and no valid objection has yet been given.

BigK, did this reply meet your hope for humor? Misessus (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So I did a little research, and it turns out that Keynes' work had very little to do with the final version. From Globalizing Capitol by Barry Eichengreen:

The Keynes and White plans differed in the obligations they imposed on creditor countries and the exchange rate flexibility and capital mobility they permitted. The Keynes plan would have allowed countries to change their exchange rates and apply exchange and trade restrictions as required to reconcile full employment with payments balance. The White plan, in contrast, foresaw a world free of controls and of pegged currencies superintended by international institutions with veto power over parity changes. To prevent deflationary policies abroad from forcing countries to import unemployment, Keynes's Clearing Union provided for extensive balance-of-payment financing (subject to increasingly strict conditionality and penalty interest rates) and significant exchange rate flexibility. If the United States ran persistent payments surpluses, as it had in the 1930s, it would be obliged to finance the total drawing rights of other countries, which came to $23 billion in Keynes' scheme...

Eichengreen goes on to describe that the final version was far more similar to White's plan. Keynes didn't believe that it was possible to design a system that didn't address the balance of payments directly, and the system he designed focused on that to preserve stable exchange rates, as opposed to a peg. So you can't say that this was Keynes' creation.--Dark Charles (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you did a little research, Charles, but isn't that against the rules and policies? That's what you've been telling me, isn't it? However, none of what you've "discovered" bears much relevance, for every single economist participating in the BW-system was a mainstream economist, and the basic framework was identical. You think the differences were significant, they weren't. Both built on a macro system controlled by governments and super government institutions, all of which were introduced. The system was to be managed by experts at local central banks, the IMF and World Bank. There was to be one reserve currency. Keynes wanted bancor, a new world currency, but in the end the USD was picked. So yes, I can say it was Keynes' creation because it was. And still, Hazlitt correctly predicted the collapse of the system, getting it down to a tee. He said it would be immensely inflationary, which it was. The very fact that the designers worried about deflationary policies, Keynes' chief nightmare, should tell you something. The differences you're touting is like arguing how different MacDonald's is from Pizza Hut.

I don't want to be rude, Charles, but this is exactly why people like you and BigK and LK shouldn't be editing articles such as this one. It does require some skill and knowledge, and if you're not familiar with economics in general or Austrian economics in particular, why do you assume your competent to decide what goes and what doesn't go in? At any rate, I've given you every chance to advance a real objection. You've failed. I have the support I need. I'm including Hazlitt's prediction. Misessus (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason why my source holds more weight on WIkipedia than yours is because my source is from a university publishing house and was written by a respected mainstream economist. I provided a source that was far more detailed than yours and debunked many of your claims, and instead of admitting that you're wrong or that I have a point, you're making stuff up--we both know that most of the stuff you just wrote isn't in your source. I don't mind debate, and I think there is a formulation of the information in your source that would make a good edit. But please follow the rules and keep the discussion honest.--Dark Charles (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You can think what you will, Charles. This whole talk page is a testament to your limited grasp of economics, mainstream or Austrian. None of my claims or the claims made in the article has been debunked, as I have demonstrated. The basic framework, dynamics and institutions envisioned by Keynes and the BW-advocates were all implemented. Or are you suggesting the dollar did not become the world reserve currency, and that the World Bank and IMF were never created?

Regarding honesty. People like you, BigK and LK have shown no interest in an honest debate, as evidenced by the fact that you almost always completely ignore every single well founded, well sourced objection to your edits. I'm all for honest debate, but that involves answering other people's arguments, as I have done in this debate with you. Where are your answers to my arguments regarding the removal of the Schiff-bit? Nowhere to be found? And how about that honesty? Wouldn't it be honest and indeed more factually correct to delete the Schiff-bit, since his prediction did come true? The whole idea that mainstream economists, none of which had anything to do with the WSJ-article, have criticized the -timing- of Austrian predictions shows a huge lack of understanding for the concept of economic predictions. They are -never- timed, they are broad statements about the future. No economist has ever tried to time a prediction. Predictions, as I've explained, is not about timing. Therefore the Schiff-bit is completely misplaced. How about debating this in an honest fashion instead of your trademark ignoring and/or steamrolling? Misessus (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor

Misessus asked me to comment about this issue on my talk page; I decided to answer here to make sure it's visible to everyone.

I took a look at the info above, and, as far as I can tell, what the other editors are telling you (Missessus) is correct. You are trying to prove a certain claim wrong by using your analysis of the world economic situation. I'll say, you make a fairly persuasive case to someone like myself with very little knowledge of economics. However, as the other editor's have told you, there is no situation in which we can use our own research, our own analysis, our own interpretation to substantiate claims in Wikipedia articles. The quote people keep bringing up from WP:V (that we care about verifiability, not truth) is a cornerstone about how Wikipedia works. Otherwise, every single article would boil down to experts (or people who think they are experts) arguing about what is true, and there would be absolutely no way to settle the arguments.

That being said, there are several options that can be pursued. The first question to ask is whether or not the WSJ is a reliable source. Now, yes, in general, WSJ is a great source. However, every individual article must be evaluated on its own merits. If, Misessus mentions early on, the WSJ is based on hearsay, that may well be a reason to question it. Not for certain, but maybe. Note that, of course, we would not question it based on the actual economic analysis (that would be OR again). A second consideration is whether or not Misessus is correct that a rebuttal claim should be included. Is the other claim also a reliable source? If so, WP:NPOV says we should probably include it. I'm, however, not qualified to judge the reliability of either source; your best bet would be WP:RSN. As a followup to what Mises says about Jews and citing Nazi documents, by the way, this is the grounds on which we wouldn't include those claims--the Nazi sources aren't reliable for this topic (except to simply verify what the Nazi philosophy was).

Misessus, if you really do feel like you're following WP policy (and I strongly recommend you read WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV if you haven't already, as those are our core policies and all highly relevant here), and you feel like your opinion isn't being heard, I recommend starting a Request for Comment, which is basically a way to invite other uninvolved editors with an interest in the question to this talk page to provide their input. If you need help setting that up, let me know. I'm going to also leave you a note on your talk page about some problematic language that you're using. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, this link is supposed to be the same as the WSJ article.--Dark Charles (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much Qwyrxian for your input.

As far as the Misess thing goes, I think we can all agree on that. Let me also say that I agree with BigK to some extent. The "Criticism of the Mainstream" is in and of it self fine because it provides a good contrast between mainstream and AS, but to make yet another subsection for "Predictive ability" is unnecessary. I think my last edit was a good model. The fact is that the stated goal of mainstream economics is to predict the future. Most of their work, specifically their modeling, is geared towards this purpose. The Austrians have never taken this approach. Their goal is to explain economic phenomena. That said, they have on many occasions said what the likely outcomes of a specific policy are, all other things equal. But BigK is right in one thing, not even mainstream economists are very concerned with timing. Even Samuelson gave himself a 25 year span with his USSR vs US prediction. And this leads us to the Schiff issue.

What the WSJ-article criticized was not an economic prediction, it was an investment strategy. Schiff did "predict" that the dollar would lose value, but he said nothing of the time frame. The WSJ-article was published in late January 2009, at a time the USD and US stocks experienced a very short lived rally. This prompted the authors of the article to claim Schiff's strategy was wrong, but the whole article was more of an attempt to discredit a competitor than to analyze his economic competence. None of the authors were trained, academic economists of any repute, at least not to my knowledge, nor would you expect an article like that from academic economists, not to mention that academic economists seldom write for WSJ in order to discredit a stock broker.

But since the subject of the section specifically was economic predictions, I thought it was necessary to point this out and then explain what economic predictions actually are, what Schiff did predict and whether or not his prediction has come true. Firstly, economic predictions are, as said, broad statements. Statements like "The USSR will overtake the US" or "The US dollar will lose value". I sourced this explanation to the Harvard and Columbia trained, NYT best selling historian Thomas E. Woods, jr. No one in this world can doubt his credentials, certainly not compared to the WSJ-authors. Having established that, I reiterated that Schiff had predicted that the dollar would lose value and thirdly, I demonstrated that this had actually taken place. The most widely used method of measuring the value of a currency is to compare it against gold. The USD made record lows against gold throughout 2009 and continues to do so to this day. In addition to that, it has made record lows against every major currency and almost all commodities. This proves Schiff was right, which makes it completely nonsensical to have the WP-article say he was wrong. The references to the verifiable-rule are completely moot, because even if the claim can be verified the entire explanation on how and why the claim was wrong can also be verified. There is absolutely no way anyone can justify that my explanation shouldn't be included based on the verifiability rule. Nor can the OR-rule be invoked, since none of my sources were OR.

Let me point out that my suggestion was to delete the WSJ-sourced claim, because having it there would require the complete refutation, which makes the whole section overcrowded. Another reason for deleting the WSJ-claim is that it was not made by academic economists, nor was it refuting an economic prediction because a few months of an unexpected rally simply does not qualify. It was an attempt to discredit a competitor, an attempt which was proven false by the facts. The supposed client losses were regained within a few months of the March lows and had turned to gains well before the end of 2009, not to mention the development after that. It simply has no place in a WP-article. It shouldn't be there, period. The fact that no one short of a WSJ-subscription actually can check the source isn't exactly a point in its favor either, is it?

I also notice that Hazlitt's prediction was deleted. I fail to see the reason for this as it was sourced with Hazlitt's very own book, largely based on articles and editorials published in the 1940s, many of which are reprinted in the book. It can be downloaded for free, so anyone can check the source.

I also wish to remind everyone that this discussion has been had before on this very talk page. Then, like now, the voices of reason were steamrolled by, you guessed it, BigK and Dark Charles. Schiff never said that a dollar collapse is inevitable, he said that is on the horizon if policy is not changed. The whole point of his Senate bid was to prevent a dollar collapse, so he obviously didn't think it to be a foregone conclusion. If he had, why would he else have spent so much time and money running for the US Senate? He said that the dollar would collapse if the Fed kept printing money to cover Congress' deficit spending. This is a truism, since excessive money printing will, if continued long enough, inevitably led to hyperinflation. He has published videos and written statements explaining what he said. Very easy to look up.

To summarize, since no actual sources regarding Mises and Schiff seem to be forthcoming, I will restore the section to the way it was in my last edit, including the Hazlitt prediction. I don't want an edit war, so any objections to this edit should be discussed here first. I also want to point out that in no way can the agreement between BigK and Dark Charles, considering their behavior and poor sourcing on this article, be considered a consensus.

In closing, I want to say that I appreciate Qwyrxian for taking an interest, it was sorely needed. Misessus (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Misessus, I've warned you here about your edit warring on this article. Please stop and wait for more input. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, but considering there is no support for your or Charles' reversal I think I'll be alright. You should familiarize yourself with the discussion before editing. No one supports the Mises bit, and there is little if any support for the Schiff bit. I was merely executing the consensus of the talk page. If you think the Mises and Schiff bits should be included, please make your case, and we'll discuss it, but don't just edit. Deal? Misessus (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like there isn't consensus for how you're trying to handle this. Worse, your edits are straying beyond the bounds of policy (WP:3rr, WP:NPA, WP:BATTLE, WP:Synthesis to name a few, have you read these links?). Carrying on like this will in the end only harm the article in ways you don't foresee and thwart you. Moreover, given the worries brought up at WP:SPA (see also WP:Disruption), you need to be even more careful than most editors about your behaviour here. I don't mean to spit a bunch of policies and other links at you, but it seems to me you haven't read them, or have done and think your outlook as to content trumps them. It doesn't. Please heed this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no support for the reverse edit, that much is clear. The Mises-bit has already been dropped, and only BigK are advancing some weak support for the Schiff-bit, though very poorly motivated. What you did was to jump in and reverse to an edit there was little or no support for without bothering to read the discussion. How many rules and policies did you violate by doing that, I wonder? Misessus (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If that's true, then there should be no worries about waiting for further input. This is not about the content as such, it's about your behaviour which, perhaps unbeknownst to you, is likely doing more harm than help to what you want to do. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my behavior seems to be a much more important talking point than anything related to the article. Thank you for making that clear and for your kind advice. Misessus (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

When behaviour becomes a worry, yes, it becomes more worrisome than the underlying content. Many new editors (or single pupose editors) get blocked because they don't quite understand this. Behaviour is highly meaningful here because the site is open edited and there is a longstanding conensus, on sundry levels, to keep it that way. Please, don't try to make any more edits having to do with this for awhile. You've now breached 3rr. That's by far a bigger deal than good faith content, even if that content is flawed. If there is conensus for what you want, it will out. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to think that since the Mises-bit is now included despite the fact that no one supports it. Sourced material is deleted routinely. A WSJ-article no one can actually read is seemingly a more reliable source than an entire book which can be downloaded for free. I'm sick and tired of your moralizing when there is such blatant bias being inflicted on this article every day, with absolutely no regard for either the quality or the reliability of the sources given. This kind of behavior from people like you, BigK and Charles would never be tolerated on a mainstream page, but when it's fringe anything goes. Except reliable sourced of course. This is hypocrisy and double standard. You can refer to whatever junk you want when criticizing the fringe, and delete any well sourced material in favor of it. That is why its so pointless to cite WP-rules and policies, because they clearly apply quite differently depending what article is being edited. Misessus (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding comments like, "I'm sick and tired of your moralizing"

It's becoming more and more clear that the problem isn't that User:Misessus doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, but rather that he has no regard for the Wiki processes. The constant attacks in nearly every one of his comments is rising to the level of becoming a burden to the project, and possibly in need of review in a RFC/User. I greatly dislike such measures, but the way he wantonly disregards pleas to mollify his incendiary approach is quite troubling. BigK HeX (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)